Does the "she was found in violation of..." <-> "she was violated" equivalence have a name?

Solution 1:

The phenomenon and label of the change is one thing, and the result is labeled another thing.

In the specific community (of aviation; I don't think I've heard this at all before so I'm assuming it is limited to here), it is simply a change in syntax accompanied by semantic drift.

The result, where a passive form is interpreted actively, is called a

deponent verb

In any other circumstance I would call this an error, but if everybody in the community consistently uses it that way, then that's 'correct'/how you do it/how you'd be understood for that community.

If I were forced at gunpoint to encapsulate everything into one word, I would say that 'violate' was

deponentized

but that's a bit of a mouthful so I'd prefer

"'violate' became a deponent verb".

There are other words to describe the nuances of process/different usage though. The 'agency' of the subject is changed despite the usual conventions of active or passive form. Likewise the valency (number of nouns related by the verb) changed. It's as though the active bivalent/transitive 'The pilot violated the rule' changed to the active univalent/intransitive 'the pilot violated (committed a violation)', and the intransitive slipped into the similarly univalent form of the passive 'the pilot was violated' idiomatically (but keeping the order and semantics of the active).

Solution 2:

It’s an example of zero derivation. This means deriving a new word from another word while bypassing the usual derivation rule that involves adding a prefix or suffix such as ‑ify or ‑ize. To illustrate zero derivation, here is an example from the exploding penguin sketch:

(1) Oh, intercourse the penguin. [Emphasis added]

Monty Python derive ?intercourse (trans) from intercourse (subj), creating a funny euphemism for fuck (trans). This is a zero derivation because it takes place without a verb-creating suffix. (Zero-deriving a verb from a noun is also known as “verbing” the noun.)

Your example is a zero derivation of a new word, not just a figurative use of an existing word. This can be seen from the fact that the new word has different restrictions on how it can be used. The existing word,

(2) violate (trans), to treat with violence or dishonor

takes as its object the target of the violence or dishonor. It can be a person, but it can also be a law, regulation, or custom.

The new word,

(3) violate (trans), to sanction (a person, for a rule violation)

takes as its object the person being sanctioned.

So:

(4) Harry violated Sally.

(5) Harry violated Texas law.

(6) The investigator will violate Harry for police misconduct.

But not:

(7) *The investigator will violate Texas law for Harry’s misconduct.

The difference is apparent in the ambiguity of (4) and the absence of ambiguity of (5). Violated in statement (4) could be either violate (2) or violate (3). It may mean Harry sanctioned Sally for a rule violation, or that Harry committed a violent act upon Sally. But violated in statement (5) unambiguously means violate (2), Harry dishonored the law. This is because only violate (2) can take a law, regulation, or custom as its object.

Another example of zero derived professional slang is

(8) KA (trans), to identify a person’s “known associates”, from KA (subj), a person’s “known associates”.

Example:

(9) I’ll KA the victim.

Besides the references linked above, the article “Verbing Nouns” by John Lawler was very helpful in writing this answer.

^{_{The lawler weight of this answer is 0.55 lw.}}